6-Dec-92 1:49:06-GMT,9189;000000000001
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 92 20:49:04 EST
From:
Reply-To: Louie Crew
To: luti
Fcc: /fac/lcrew/C/outgoing
Subject: Let There Be Light!
Message-ID:
My friend Tobias Haller, a monk with the Order of St. Gregory, offers this
response to the bible discussion which I shared from soc.religion.christian:
>Date: 04 Dec 92 12:34:05 EST
>From: Tobias S Haller <76675.3032@compuserve.com>
>Subject: Re: Abominable article
Dear Louie,
Here follows the letter on abomination. Please post in LutiLand if you
think it might shed some light. Much of it is stuff I'd wanted to put on
paper (or phosphor) for a long time, and the firebomb did some good by
shaking it out.
-Tobias
============================================
To: Bill Rea >INTERNET:cctr114@cantua.canterbury.ac.nz
cc: Luti's Mailbag
I have a few comments in response to your astounding epistle on the
Bible and homosexuality. It may well be that some people feel the
Bible has little relevance today; and people who use (or misuse) the
Bible as have done are doubtless part of the cause.
I consider myself a biblically orthodox christian. As such, I affirm
that, as you say,
...everyone accepts that some things in the
Bible are cultural and not binding on us today....
But you do not wish homosexual acts to come under this particular
heading, and suggest that those who do are in some way trying to
throw the whole Bible out the window. I'm not trying to "throw out"
any of the Bible. I'm trying to understand it.
Are the levitical condemnations of homosexual acts cultural baggage
or not? A closer look at the text indicates that they are. I will
comment briefly on your claims.
Specifically with respect to homosexual acts, it is not possible to
extract from the Bible any passages which indicate that they are to
be accepted as a normal expression of human sexuality.
Such exegesis is impossible only for those who are beforehand
convinced that it is impossible. It is clear to many scholars (e.g.,
Robin Scroggs) that apart from the levitical proscriptions (about
which more below) there is no condemnation of "committed,
lifelong, homosexual relationships" but only of homosexual acts
connected with prostitution or idolatry.
It can also be maintained that the relationship between David and
Jonathan was an instance of adolescent homoerotic behavior.
Unfortunately, the redactor and subsequent editors of the Hebrew
text have rendered some of the most crucial verses "obscure" (as the
footnotes in our translations so helpfully inform us). Certainly if one
were to discover this story with the names and locales changed, one
would find no difficulty in reading it as a lost chapter of the Iliad. It
is complete with armor-bearers, intrigue, romance, pledges of love,
arranged and unwanted marriages, threats to the continuation of the
royal house, dynastic warfare, and an elegy to fallen heroes / lovers.
I'm perfectly aware that much of the traditional scholarly community
rejects such an interpretation of the story of David and Jonathan; and
I maintain this to be just another instance of heterosexist inability to
see what is there.
I am willing to stand corrected on this but it is the only expression
of sexuality which is desc[r]ibed as an abomination. Not even
sexual relations with an animal attracts this description.
I am glad that you are willing to be corrected on this point, since you
are mistaken. This is what comes of taking verses of Scripture out of
context. If you will look at the whole of Leviticus 18, rather than just
verse 22 in isolation, you will find a long list of sexual acts, including
various types of incest, bestiality, homosexuality, and sleeping with a
woman during her period. (Chapter 20 is similarly inclusive.) It is
true that the word _tow'evah_ (=abomination) occurs in verse 22;
however, the closing verses of the chapter read:
"But you shall keep my statutes and my ordinances and commit
_none of these abominations_, either the citizen or the alien who
resides among you (for the inhabitants of the land, who were before
you, committed _all of these abominations_, and the land became
defiled)... For whoever commits _any of these abominations_ shall be
cut off from their people. So keep my charge not to commit _any of
these abominations_ that were done before you, and not to defile
yourselves by them: I am the LORD your God." -- Lev 18:26-27,
29-30 (emphasis mine)
Clearly, then, _all_ of the acts in the chapter are meant to fall under
the heading of _tow'evah_. Ezekiel adds adultery to this list, and also
mentions yet again the prohibition on intercourse during menses.
(Ezek 18:10-13, 22:10-11) To violate any of these laws is to violate
all of them. There is no provision in levitical judaism to obey "part"
of the Law. Unless one is willing to hold men who have intercourse
with their wives during menses to be guilty of a crime against God,
then one should not resort to the levitical texts to find a
condemnation of homosexual acts.
But there is more. The whole concept of _tow'evah_ goes far beyond
matters sexual. It designates "that which makes ritually impure." It is
a matter of cult and rite, not necessarily of morals. Some acts under
the biblical category of _tow'evah_ are still considered morally
defective; but many are not. Some external basis has been sought to
determine which acts called _tow'evah_ in the Scripture are truly part
of the moral, as opposed to the ritual law.
Look at some of the other acts described as _tow'evah_ in the Bible,
that are _not_ held to be immoral by most persons today. These
include the eating of non-kosher foods (Deu 14:3), the wearing of
clothing "proper" to the opposite sex (Deu 22:5), the divorce and
subsequent remarriage of a woman who has married another in the
interim (Deu 24:1-4), and lending money at interest (Ezek 18:10-
13).
Just as the church overturned the prohibitions on these matters (in
the last--lending at interest--only after considerable debate for nearly
1900 years) by applying reason, not by looking for prooftexts, the
church must deal with homosexuality today in the same way. On this
issue, as with many other dilemmas (such as abortion), the Bible will
not help us with easy answers. It's not that we're "throwing the Bible
out," but that it simply does not apply to the issue under discussion.
So for us within the mainstream of Christianity, we cannot find a
Biblical basis for the claims made by homosexual Christians. This
is different from saying that God doesn't love them, and different
from saying they can't be Christians. But it does seem to be part
and parcle of the break down of sexual ethics which has followed
the decline of Christianity and its influence in our nation. The
movement for the acceptance of homosexual Christians seems to
be part of the rebellion of the secular world against Christian
ethical standards.
I hope you are comfortable in your "mainstream." I suppose anyone
who disagrees with you is outside the covenant. Well, I beg to differ. I
consider myself as a biblical scholar and christian well within the
"mainstream," and if I'm not, then I suppose Jesus must have been
right when he said that the road to hell is broad and popular. This
section of your diatribe is nothing but a tautology, since you have
made the _a priori_ decision that homosexuality is unacceptable.
Moreover, the church is constantly "giving in" to secular standards; in
fact, many secular standards are quite moral. Marriage, for example,
was imported into the church from the Roman civic culture. Early
Christianity was hostile to it, but eventually gave in, and adopted this
civic virtue, to such an extent that we now have the strange phrase
"Christian family values."
You end your argument by setting up and then attacking the straw
man of "But I was born that way." The fact that homosexuality is
probably genetic _has_ been raised by some in the debate on the
issue. And any who hinge their position in defense of homosexual
relationships on this _are_ no doubt presenting a flawed argument. But
the same flawed argument is used when the "natural law" tradition
tries to prove that heterosexuality is _good_ by virtue of its being
_natural_. To paraphrase Mae West, Nature has nothing to do with it.
Natural law and the natural law tradition are hopeless dead ends for
resolving moral issues. (Sorry Justice Thomas...)
Instead, Christ gave us a very simple test for morality: the Golden
Rule (Matt 7:12). He loved us so much that he became _tow'evah_,
an object of revulsion and scorn, for us (Psalm 88:14, Gal 3:13).
In doing so he freed us from the Law, and left us only that rule of
conduct: Love others as yourself, and do as you would be done by.
Homosexual relationships that are loving, faithful, and mutually
supportive appear to meet this test. If that is enough for Jesus, it is
enough for me. If that is enough for Jesus, it should be enough for
you too.
--Tobias S Haller, BSG
President, The Catholic Fellowship of the Episcopal Church